8/9/2019 62 SCRA 167 (1)

1/7

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

 

G.R. No. L-22358 January 29, 1975

PIO !RRETTO SONS,

INC

., petitioner,vs.COMP!"I! M!RITIM!, respondent.

Vicente del Rosario, E. V. Navarro and E. I.

Perez 

 for petitioner.

Rafael Dinglasan for respondent.

 

ESGUERR!, J.:

Petition for revie on certiorari of the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals in its !"#$.R. No. %&&'(#Rhich reverses the )ud*+ent of the !ourt of First Instance of Manila, includin* its resolution denin*the petitioner-s +otion for reconsideration of the decision.

The factual bac*round of the case is as follos/

Petitioner as plaintiff filed a co+plaint for collection of a su+ of +one a*ainst herein respondent,alle*in* that durin* the +onths of October and Nove+ber, 0120, the defendant 3no respondent4purchased on credit and received fro+ the plaintiff 3no petitioner4, lu+ber orth P5,&66.557 and onDece+ber 2, 0120, the defendant#respondent a*ain purchased on credit and received fro+ theplaintiff#petitioner, lu+ber orth P25&.80, thereb incurrin* a total indebtedness of P',652.&' ith

stipulated interest of 0%9 per annu+, plus attorne-s fees.

Respondent as defendant filed its anser denin* all the +aterial alle*ations of the co+plaint and,b a of counterclai+, praed that plaintiff#petitioner be ordered to pa the su+s of P566.66 ase:penses of liti*ation and P0,566.16 as "ttorne-s fees, plus costs.

8/9/2019 62 SCRA 167 (1)

2/7

Plaintiff#petitioner havin* filed its anser to the counterclai+ of defendant#respondent, the case asheard and the trial court rendered )ud*+ent in favor of the plaintiff#petitioner, the dispositive portionof hich reads as follos/

;oth parties appealed to the !ourt of "ppeals, the plaintiff PIO >"RR=TTO SONS, IN!. assi*nin*the folloin* error/

The ?oer !ourt erred in holdin* that the +oratoriu+ orders and las condoned thestipulated interest of 0%9 per annu+ on defendant-s prear indebtedness, and inaardin* to plaintiff onl the le*al interest fro+ the filin* of the co+plaint. 3pp. 2#5,>rief for the Plaintiff#"ppellant4

and defendant !OMP"@I" M"RITIM" +ain* four assi*n+ent of errors, to it/

I. The ?oer !ourt erred in holdin* that plaintiff had proven its alle*ed clai+s ofP5,'66.55 and P25&.80.

II. The ?oer !ourt erred in holdin* that defendant had not paid plaintiff-s alle*edclai+ in the a+ount of P5,'66.55.

III. The ?oer !ourt erred in not holdin* that the co+plaint states no cause of actiona*ainst defendant, and that the alle*ed cause of action, if an at all, is alread barredb the statute of li+itation of actions.

IV. The ?oer !ourt erred in orderin* defendant to pa to plaintiff the su+ ofP',652.&' plus le*al interest thereon fro+ the filin* of the co+plaint until full paid,plus attorne-s fees in the a+ount of P566.66 to*ether ith the costs. 3pp. 0#%, >rieffor the Defendant#"ppellant4

The !ourt of "ppeals reversed the )ud*+ent of the trial court and ordered the dis+issal of the caseon the *round that deliver of the lu+ber b plaintiff#petitioner to defendant#respondent as not dulproved.

Petitioner-s +otion for reconsideration of the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals as denied a*ain on

the *round of lac of sufficient shoin* of a valid deliver of the lu+ber in Auestion b the >arrettoSons, Inc. to the !o+paBia Mariti+a.

8/9/2019 62 SCRA 167 (1)

3/7

I. The !ourt of "ppeals erred in creatin* and raisin*,motu propio, for the first ti+e ane issue, that of the Auestion of deliver, upon hich the !ourt of "ppeals based itsdecision reversin* the )ud*+ent of the trial !ourt.

II. The !ourt of "ppeals erred in its conclusion dran fro+ proven facts, and has

decided the case in a a not in accordance ith la or ith the applicable decisionsof this !ourt, and

III. The !ourt of "ppeals erred in that it has so far departed fro+ the accepted andusual course of )udicial proceedin*s. 3pp. 0#%, >rief for Petitioner4.

Petitioner further asserts that the case havin* been tried and decided b the trial court on the issueof hether or notthere was payment made y respondent !ompa"ia #aritima of the lumer covered y E$hs. %&'(% to %&')% *invoices of petitioner+ and E$h. %%, %'( % to %'- *the counter'receipts

issued y the respondent+, it is alone on this issue that the !ourt of "ppeals should have decided thecase and not on the issue of hether or not there as deliver of the lu+ber in Auestion.

The principal issue, therefore, before Cs is hether or not the !ourt of "ppeals decided the case ona ne issue not raised in the pleadin*s before the loer courts.

;e rule that the issue of deliver on hich the !ourt of "ppeals based its decision reversin* that ofthe trial court is no ne issue at all. For deliver and pa+ent in a contract of sale, or for that +atterin Auasi#contracts, are so interrelated and intertined ith each other that ithout deliver of the*oods there is no correspondin* obli*ation to pa. The to co+ple+ent each other. Thus, b thecontract of sale one of the contractin* parties obli*ates hi+self to transfer the onership of and todeliver a deter+inate thin*, and the other to pa therefor a price certain in +one or its eAuivalent.3"rt. 0258, 0st par., ne !ivil !ode4. The source of this provision of la is "rticle 0225 of the old

!ode, hich provides/

> the contract of purchase and sale one of the contractin* parties obli*ates hi+selfto deliver a deter+inate thin* and the other to pa a certain price therefor in +oneor in so+ethin* representin* the sa+e.

It is clear that the to ele+ents cannot be dissociated, for the contract of purchase and sale is,essentiall, a bilateral contract, as it *ives rise to reciprocal obli*ations7 to it, on the part of theseller, to deliver a deter+inate thin*, and on the part of the buer, to pa a certain price therefor in+one or in so+ethin* representin* it. 3p. 0, !apistrano, The ?a of Purchase and Sale4.

The findin* of the !ourt of "ppeals that there as no deliver of the lu+ber is ell founded. "ssuccinctl ruled b said !ourt/

That this is basicall an action for lu+ber alle*edl bou*ht, received, and not paidfor7 no )ust as a seller, in order to recover, +ust prove not onl that he has sold anddelivered and has not been paid, so a buer in order to be conde+ned to pa +ustbe shon to have bou*ht, received, and not paid. Of course, it is correct to sa asplaintiff sas that even if there had been no purchase, provided there had been a

8/9/2019 62 SCRA 167 (1)

4/7

deliver, it could recover, not on the sale but on the Auasi#contract a*ainst un)ustenrich+ent, but hether on sale or on Auasi contract, the vital ele+ent is deliver7 ...nor should it be said that there as no issue at all beteen the parties as to the factof deliver7 because that issue as present in the pleadin*s, not onl as can be seenin par. % of the anser, but also as can be seen fro+ the fact that plaintiff itself on p.

%6 of the tsn. Vol. I, ased its on itness, Ro+an ?e*arda So, this Auestion/

E. ;as that lu+ber covered b that invoice dul received andacnoled*ed b the !o+paBia Mariti+aG

and defendant on the other hand spent a *ood part of its proofs in de+onstratin* thatthere had been no deliver, e.*., Vol. II, pp. 0&%#0&27 no on the vital point ofdeliver, it +ust be re+e+bered that the procedure beteen the parties as sou*ht tobe proved b plaintiff itself thru its itness, Huanito $. Pere, had been as follos/

". ;henever the !o+paBia Mariti+a orders lu+ber fro+ our

co+pan, the !o+paBia Mariti+a issues a purchase order to the Pio>arretto Sons, Inc. ;hen this purchase order is received b the Pio>arretto Sons, Inc., the Pio >arretto Sons, Inc. delivers the lu+ber, asspecified in the purchase order. Cpon deliver of this lu+ber, thelu+ber is covered b invoice of the Pio >arretto, to*ether ith thepurchase order of the !o+paBia Mariti+a. No, hen the lu+ber isreceived b the !o+paBia Mariti+a, the !o+paBia Mariti+a sta+psour invoice for the lu+ber delivered, and the receivin* cler si*ns thesaid invoice for the !o+paBia Mariti+a. No, after the lu+ber hasbeen delivered, our deliver +an brin*s bac to our office and *ivesthe invoice to +e, to*ether ith the purchase order. No, at the end

of each ee, I prepare the State+ent of "ccounts to be sent the!o+paBia Mariti+a, throu*h our collector, and, in turn, the "ccountin* Depart+ent of the !o+paBia Mariti+a issues as theinds of receipts for the invoices, purchase orders, and state+ents ofaccounts surrendered to the+. tsn. ('#((, Vol. I7

stated

otherise

, first, there as a purchase order b Mariti+a7 %ndl, there as an invoice b >arretto7 &rdl, there as a deliver untoMariti+a7 2thl, there as a deliver of the purchase order and deliver receipt unto Mariti+a for checin* or revision7and since Mariti+a ould because of that retain the purchase orders and deliver receipts, it ould issue in e:chan*e

its on counter receipt of said docu+ents7 and 5thl, after due verification had been +ade, Mariti+a ould then pa7this procedure should no be correlated to the evidence herein presented7 no plaintiff has here presented to sets ofdocu+ents, " to "#' and > to >#27 the first set consists of a purchase order, to*ether ith the invoices or deliverreceipts, "t to "#'7 and the second set consists of counter#receipts evidencin* the fact that Mariti+a had received, iththe e:ception of that in >#2, certain docu+ents, i.e., purchase orders and deliver receipts fro+ >arretto, para surevision7 if then the docu+ents ould be correlated ith the testi+onies and the procedure outlined b itness Pere,it ill result that as to " to "#', plaintiff, according to it , had alread co+plied ith the purchase order, the sale, anddeliver, but that it had not sub+itted all these to Mariti+a para su revision hile as to > to >#2, it had according to it ,co+plied ith purchase order 3e:cept as to >#24, sale, deliver, and sub+ission para su revision, but the sa+e hadnot been as et checed and verified b Mariti+a7 the Auestion is, has this proof de+onstrated plaintiff-s cause ofaction, pursuant to the ver procedure b i t outlined in its evidence to have been folloed beteen the parties in the

8/9/2019 62 SCRA 167 (1)

5/7

course of their co++ercial transactions but ho could that be hen precisel because of that practice, it *ave untoMariti+a the ri*ht to first verif7 and there is no shoin* that had been verified7 but let it not be here said that )ustbecause Mariti+a had not et verified, plaintiff should not be per+itted to recover, for that practice +ust *ive a to thetruth, as plaintiff contends, that if it had after all proved deliver, defendant +ust pa7 but has plaintiff proveddeliver under the evidenceG "ccordin* to hat has been paid, plaintiff had, accordin* to it, sub+itted its docu+ents in> to >#2 for revision7 this +eans to sa that it had in its possession and *iven unto Mariti+a purchase orders, anddeliver receipts, but does this +ean that it had proved deliverG !an deliver be proved b the fact that one had in hispossession hat one had believed to be a deliver receipt and sub+itted that for verification, ithout an actual proof

of deliver of the articleG If that ere the case, a liti*ant ould be e:cused fro+ provin* the ele+ent +ost vital to shohis cause of action7 and a !ourt of Hustice +ust have to rel on the presu+ption that )ust because one had in hispossession a deliver receipt, one had alread delivered7 but the vice of this ar*u+ent is that it alto*ether parts fro+the basis that the deliver receipt thus possessed and surrendered as a *enuine deliver receipt, evidencin* thefact that buer had indeed received7 but here, there absolutel is no proof of that7 hat this !ourt has onl seen in theevidence nearest to the reAuired proof is the sta+p of Mariti+a on "#0 to "#'7 for as this !ourt has said, the supposedad+ission b defendant itness Narvae that the lu+ber therein annotated had been delivered as clearl andunfortunatel, one that could not, to be fair to the itness, have been correctl +eant to have b hi+ been +ade,for he as purchasin* a*ent onl and could not be Aualified at all to declare if hat he had authoried to bepurchased had been thereafter delivered, and the itness had in fact insisted a*ainst such alle*ed deliver toPosadas, and itness had all the ti+e insisted that onl one H. ?eoncio, could receive, and this clari fication isindisputabl fortified b the ver evidence of plaintiff, consistin* in the purchase order =:h. ", herein is annotated/

Not valid unless invoices are receipted

and si*ned b/ H. ?=ON!IO7

hich na+e, H. ?eoncio had been ritten precisel b said itness and this +ust+ean that the si*nature of Posadas in "#0 to "#' b the evidence of plaintiff itself,has been shon to have been unauthoried7 and *oin* to the sta+p of Mariti+a on "#0 to "#', this had to be correlated to the fact that Narvae has testif ied that/

This is our on sta+p, but e did not authorie Mr. Posadas to si*nfor an lu+ber received. tsn. 0&2, Vol. II7

nor has in fact, in an part of the evidence been shon an proof as even to sho

the authenticit of said si*nature Posadas7 or that said Posadas had actuallreceived said lu+ber7 to prove at least that the lu+ber had been deposited in theco+pound of Mariti+a b that Posadas, for if there had been such proof in therecord, if plaintiff had shon evidence of that actual deliver of the lu+ber into thepossession of Mariti+a, then it ould have been the obli*ation of this !ourt underthe la of Auasi#contracts, to *rant >arretto its praer for the value of that7 but no,hat >arrette has here presented as itnesses ere first Ro+an ?e*arda So,+ana*er of >arretto, ho ad+itted in cross that/

E. ;ith respect to =:hibits "#0 to "#5, ou did not have anpersonal intervention or participation in the preparation of these

docu+entsG

 ". No, sir, I did not have an participation or intervention.

E. Jou did not have an personal intervention in the alle*eddeliveries of these nu+ber to the !o+paBia Mariti+aG ". # No, sir, Idid not have.

8/9/2019 62 SCRA 167 (1)

6/7

 ". "s a +atter of fact, ou do not no ho put these RC>>=RST"MPS  here and si*ned at the botto+ of these =:hibits ", "#0 to "# 5G

E. No, sir, I do not no. tsn. 5(#58, Vol. I7

and then Huanita $. Pere, assistant cashier of >arretto ho ad+itted in cross that/

E. So, ou do not no of our on personal noled*e thecircu+stances or the +anner in hich these =:hibits "#0 to "#5 eresta+ped. Jou do not no of our on personal noled*eG

 ". ;ell, hen it co+es to sta+pin*, I do not have an noled*e,tsn. &5, Vol. I7

under such a status of plaintiffs on proofs, ho could it be said that plaintiff had

proved its caseG "nd ho ould it be correctl insisted a*ainst this !ourt that it haddisre*arded ?oer !ourt-s findin*s contrar to the e:istin* )urisprudence hen thereas no issue of credibilit presented to this !ourt on hich it indeed ould havebeen bound to rel as a rule upon ?oer !ourt-s deter+ination7 but hat had beenbefore this !ourt as a si+ple issue of preponderance and it had to +ae itsconclusions based on the docu+ents the+selves presented b plaintiff it is becauseof these that this !ourt is i+pelled to reiterate that it should rule as it had ruledpreviousl, for liti*ations can not be deter+ined b possibl correct suppositions,deductions or even presu+ptions, ith no basis in the evidence, for the truth +usthave to be deter+ined b the hard rules of proof. 3pp. 0#(, !" Resolution datedHanuar 8, 01'24.

"n e:a+ination of said receipts ould reveal that the ere counter#receipts issued b !ia.Mariti+a unto Pio >arretto certifin* to the fact of havin* received fro+ Pio >arretto, certainstate+ents, para su revision, hich can onl +ean not an ad+ission of havin* received the lu+ber but onl an ad+ission of havin* received certain state+ents on clai+s for lu+ber alle*edldelivered7 ... that plaintiff has the dut to prove its affir+ative alle*ations here of deliver to andfailure of defendant to pa, ... otherise, the +eanin* ould be that the sendin* of a state+ent ofaccount ould be an evidence of the ad+ission thereof hich it surel is not. 3p. ', !" Decisiondated Nove+ber 08, 01'&7 p. %(, RO"4.

;e concur in the fore*oin* observations and find that the conclusion of the !ourt of "ppeals that

plaintiff did not satisfactoril prove deliver of the lu+ber in Auestion is in accordance ith the factsand the la.

;

8/9/2019 62 SCRA 167 (1)

7/7